HP5+ help

Hi all,

I typically shoot film at rated speed and occasionally push 1 stop at most but I never pull at all. Unfortunately, last week end I accidentally shot an entire roll of HP5+ at 200 while down in New Orleans. I want to get the best results I can since hopefully I'll be using a couple of the shots as entries in the Ilford contest in March. Does anyone have any suggestions on processing HP5+ exposed this way? The MDC has a couple of suggestions but I was hoping for some personal experience...

Thanks in advance,

Ash

i have several students , and including myself who always shoot this film at this EI. We are using HC110 solutin B at five minutes 68 degrees negatives are great.

it isn't unusal to half the box speed . Everything depends on personal variables and that is why so many folks test to determine their exact EI. and development times.

I'd just process it normally.

Like Ann I shoot HP5 at 200 EI, give greater tonality and suits my way of printing. Try looking at the most obvious source for information on dev times, Ilford's own website

Ian

Thanks everybody. It's a measure of the high esteem in which I hold the APUG membership that I would check here before the Ilford site. Seriously, thank you for the responses... I guess I'm not in as bad shape as I thought.

Regards,

Ash

Ash: I echo the other responses. When I did film curves for HP5 using BTZS methodology certain subject brightness range values rated the film at between 200 and 250. If concerned you might consider developing the film for a slightly longer time, but remember the well discussed admonition of David Vestal: Never underexpose, and never over-develop. So, be careful of your developing time!

Process normally. The worst that could happen is that you have to adjust the contrast a little bit in printing. You might even decide that you prefer shooting the film this way, if you like the increased shadow detail.

I did rate the HP5+ to ISO200 and 250. All turned out well. I recently developed Hp5+ ISO200 in ID-11 1+1 for 9:30 min.
I developed ISO250 for 11 min. it was ok too but there was less shadow detail.

If you want to maintain normal contrast, you need to reduce development times with respect to ISO 400 by 30-40%. This would be the same as pulling the film. If you process at ISO 400 times you would be in effect over-developing, which will increase your contrast by pushing the highest zones by as much as one stop. You needn't worry about loosing highlight detail if you do this, as HP5 has plenty of latitude and no shoulder to speak of.

At EI200 you might want to consider using Perceptol. HP5+ is quite grainy but Perceptol tames this very well. I was able to produce a relatively grainless 5x7 print of a cropped part of a neg which at full size was about 12X16. In most other developers a 12x16 print of an HP5+ neg would have exhibited quite a lot of grain.

pentaxuser

John Curran said:

If you want to maintain normal contrast, you need to reduce development times with respect to ISO 400 by 30-40%. This would be the same as pulling the film. If you process at ISO 400 times you would be in effect over-developing, which will increase your contrast by pushing the highest zones by as much as one stop. You needn't worry about loosing highlight detail if you do this, as HP5 has plenty of latitude and no shoulder to speak of.

Click to expand...

Let's not mix up ISO with contrast. The OP have (in your mind) overexposed the film by a stop, that's all. That doesn't change the contrast "sensitivity" of the film. It simply moves the different gray zones "up" one step and also produces shadows with more detail. The only risk is that some highlights will get blown out.
Personally I always shoot HP5+ at 200-320, depending on how the light or rather the contrast range of the subject(s) is that I shoot on that film. If the subjects/scenes are very bright lit with high contrast I expose at 200 and develop maybe 25% shorter. If the scenes are quite dull in contrast (so that I want to boost it up a bit), I set the meter at 320 and develop some 30% longer. This have nothing (or very little) to do with e.g. the zone system. It just boils down to "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.".

Now for the original poster, AshenLight. In what kind of scenes did you shoot that roll? Was it (in your taste) high or low contrast? If it was somewhat high contrast, the film is probably perfectly exposed and you can "tame" that contrast by developing a bit shorter than what you normally do. Anyhow, your problem is not really a problem. It may even be a solution for some of the problems you are not yet aware of.
When I first learnt about this some 30 years ago and exposed a roll of TriX at 200 on a bright sunlit day to proceed and develop a bit shorter, my pictures all of a sudden became so much better. There were a lot of tones which I had not previously had in my prints and the printing was easier than ever. That day (and night in the darkroom) I really learnt a lot.

//Björn

edtbjon said:

Let's not mix up ISO with contrast. The OP have (in your mind) overexposed the film by a stop, that's all. That doesn't change the contrast "sensitivity" of the film. It simply moves the different gray zones "up" one step and also produces shadows with more detail. The only risk is that some highlights will get blown out.

Click to expand...

Since the original poster said that he accidentally exposed at ISO 200, and that he normally shoots at the rated speed and HP5 is box rated at 400, I assumed his normal development times would be for ISO 400. If he exposes at ISO 200 and develops for 400 he is over developing. Over developing does not increase all the zones equally. It yields a greater increase in density in the higher zones than the lower ones. This increases the distance between the lowest zones and the highest, effectively increasing contrast.

I'm not confusing ISO with contrast at all.

A quick update. I developed the roll tonight in Perceptol for 13:15 at 20C and it looks better than I expected.The exposures were pretty consistent as far as subject contrast goes so there isn't too much frame to frame variability as far as I can tell from looking at the negatives. Thanks to everyone for the help and advice.

Ash